An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World.
This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.

Sunday, December 28, 2014

The recently announced thaw in US-Cuba relations is a boon to all
Latin America and to the region's ties with Washington. The issue of US
sanctions against Cuba has dogged relations between Latin America and
the US for decades, with even the more liberal, pro-market countries in
the region calling for the embargo to be lifted.

Some have
speculated that Venezuela, Cuba's closest ally in the region, will now
be isolated as Havana looks more to the US, leaving Caracas as something
of a lone wolf in its ranting and raving against Washington. That
appears to be wishful thinking. Cuba and the US are not suddenly going
to become the best of chums.

The decision to restore full
diplomatic ties and loosen the economic and travel restrictions
(including the ability of US citizens to travel to Cuba, a restriction
that smacks of a totalitarian state) is highly significant, even
historic as Barack Obama put it. But major change is not going to come
overnight, and the likes of McDonalds and Starbucks are not suddenly going to pop up in Havana and Santiago de Cuba.

For
a start, the US already has a large diplomatic mission in the Cuban
capital, and economic restrictions have been partially lifted in recent
years, while Cuba itself has been undergoing a process of gradual and very partial economic liberalization.
What is more, to end the embargo altogether will require the approval
of the US congress, where the Republicans will now control both houses
and will surely not vote in favor.

But the hope and expectation
is that, as relations improve during the last two years of the Obama
administration, support for the embargo will fade with the benefits of
closer political and economic ties becoming evident, and whoever
succeeds him will have the backing to end the patently ineffective
embargo. That, in turn, would mean the Cuban regime would no longer have
an excuse – as the embargo has been for the last 50 years – for
stifling democratic change and using it as a scapegoat (with some
justification) for the country's economic woes.

At the same time,
scrapping the embargo would be good for business in the US and
elsewhere – given the dire economic straits that Cuba's oil benefactor
Venezuela is in, and with crude prices in freefall, shouldn't US
companies help Cuba develop its own hydrocarbon resources?

Finally,
and almost as an aside, a big unknown in all this is the role of Fidel
Castro. Did he approve of the secret talks with Washington and the
agreement between his brother Raúl and Obama? Was he involved in the
process? Could the agreement have been reached if he were still in
charge? We've heard nothing from Fidel so far.

Whatever the case,
many have said that real change could not happen in Cuba while the
Castro brothers are still alive. It seems those people could,
thankfully, be proved wrong, and that would be of benefit to the whole
of the Americas.

Xenophobia In The Bahamas: Haitian Ambassador Addresses Fred Mitchell

THE Haitian ambassador to the
Organisation of American States raised concerns yesterday about
xenophobia and mistreatment of Haitians in the Bahamas during a special
OAS sitting in Washington, DC.

Addressing
Foreign Affairs and Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell, Ambassador
Bocchit Edmond called on the Bahamas government to consider launching a
public campaign designed to underscore the notion that “verbal abuse” of
Haitians is “unfair and unjust”.

Mr
Edmond frequently emphasised that he did not wish to “cast aspersions”
on the decisions of the Bahamian government, but he nonetheless raised
several concerns about the policy measures this country has taken to
deal with illegal immigration.

In
his response, Mr Mitchell rejected suggestions of widespread abuse of
Haitians and noted that the Bahamas government does not sanction
discrimination.

“...I
would like to raise the concern of my government as to the verbal abuse
to which Haitian immigrants have been exposed in the Bahamas,” Mr
Edmond said. “As you may know, sir, there are many great Haitians
presently in the Bahamas, but that indeed have been in line with the
immigration requirements for years…and yet too many of them are victims
of certain abuse and denigrating (remarks) and I should go as far as to
say frankly rankly discriminating behaviour simply because they are
Haitians.”

“Then
there are black Bahamians who are summarily interpreted as being
Haitian and who have been subjected to the same treatment for that
reason. I would very much hope that your government would take under
advisement to launch a campaign of information of some kind to really
underscore the fact that this is unfair and unjust. I believe the vast
majority of Bahamian citizens are very good, but when I read the press
or have seen a couple of video clips on the Internet or heard and read
for myself a number of these statements that have been made, I have to
say these are frankly inflammatory and cannot fail but to stir up
feelings that are not conducive to peaceful coexistence.

“So
I would implore you, sir, to, I won’t say so much to educate, but to
inform, to make it clear the measures are being taken, measures in the
public domain, measures that I have stated from the outset are
absolutely in the purview of Bahamian sovereign decisions, but we also
know that the Bahamas as do we all has the obligation to respect basic
human rights.”

In
his response, Mr Mitchell said much of what is represented in the press
about the treatment of Haitians in the Bahamas is false.

“To
speak for a moment about the question of prejudice and discrimination
and what is said in the press and social media,” he said, “part of the
reason we are here is because of the misinformation that was spun either
in the press or social media about what this is. The government of the
country is not responsible for what is in the press or what the people
say in the press, although it might in fact reflect in some instances
what public opinion is. But I think every Bahamian understands the
nature of prejudice and bigotry and discrimination and certainly the
government does not sanction any of these things and I want to separate
myself from any effort which is suggesting that one ought to
discriminate against any national group. This is a generic policy not
expressed in terms of any national group.”

Nonetheless,
Mr Mitchell acknowledged that many Bahamians are frustrated with the
country’s illegal immigration problem and with having to absorb
“hundreds and thousands” of illegal migrants.

“Our
prime minister, when he speaks, often recounts a story of the first
black member of parliament (who) was in fact a man named Stephen Dillet
who was born in Haiti, came with his mother after the revolution as a
child,” he said. “Our governor general who just retired, Sir Arthur
Foulkes, his mother was Haitian. Haitians and people of Haitian descent
are integrated in the country. And my view is that what you are seeing,
you say expressed in the press, does not represent the majority view in
our country. What is of concern to a small country is the question of
can you continue to absorb hundreds and thousands of illegal migrants
coming into a country undocumented knowing what your obligations are in
the international arena for the security of your border and also for the
future identity and safety of your own state. That is simply
unsustainable and so we have an obligation, both internationally and
within our own domestic borders to our own population to ensure, not
that migrant stops, but that those who come to the Bahamas are properly
documented to be in the Bahamas and come through the front door and not
through the back door. That is what this is aimed at correcting.”

Thursday, December 11, 2014

By Clement Doleac
Research Associate for the Council On Hemispheric Affairs:

Democracy in Haiti is again at risk, as a fierce political battle has
erupted, preventing the scheduling of new elections. The United Nations
(UN), the Organization of American States (OAS), along with the US and
French governments have all called for the adoption of a new electoral
law, which would allow the elections to go forward. However, given the
deeply flawed nature of the present Haitian political system, it is far
from clear if just holding elections will accomplish much.

An Unsettled Past

Haiti’s political landscape is today comprised of poorly-organized and
highly fluid coalitions of parties, a situation which grows out of the
troubled nation’s tumultuous recent history. François “Papa Doc”
Duvalier was democratically elected – after a fashion – in 1957,
although he quickly came to believe that he was indispensable, declaring
himself president for life. He delivered on this threat, ruling as a
cruel and paranoid dictator until his death in 1971.

With the passing of Papa Doc power fell to his son, Jean-Claude “Baby
Doc” Duvalier, who continued his father’s authoritarian regime.
Opposition gathered and in 1986, Jean-Claude was finally forced to flee
Haiti, one step ahead of an armed revolt against his repressive
dictatorship.

In the years since 1986, democratically elected presidents have governed
Haiti, most notably the charismatic Jean-Bertrand Aristide (1991,
1995-1996, and 2001-2004) and today the talented and handsome singer
Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly (2011-present).

Haiti’s Jumbled Party System

However all is not well in the Haitian democracy, where anarchy reigns
in the nation’s fragmented political system. A bewildering array of
parties are presently represented in the Chamber of Deputies and the
Senate.

Overall, a total of 18 parties are represented in the Chamber of
Deputies and seven in the Senate. Because of their small size, most
Haitian political parties tend to organize themselves into loose
political groupings to build electoral alliances. For example, Inité
(Unity), which dominates the current composition of Congress, was formed
as a political grouping of several smaller parties to support former
president René Préval.

The report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) correctly sums up the
chaotic situation. The lack of “ideolog[ical] […] clarity leaves
citizens unable […] to choose between clearly defined platforms” in this
fragmented political landscape. “Over 100 parties and groups have
produced the 5,000 signatures required for registration,” the report
continues, and yet for all this diffusion of political input, actual
power rests in the hands of only a few well-positioned party leaders. As
it stands, the Haitian political parties fail at the most basic tasks,
failing to articulate institutionalized policies and to effectively
reach out to the citizens.

Citizenship Skepticism

The weak democratic institutions and the power vacuum provoked by the
2004 crisis led to the absence of strong parties. The ICG report stated
that charismatic personalities and “shallow politicians are
unfortunately filling this vacuum”. Rather than holding politicians
accountable for not addressing Haiti’s economic and social troubles,
these personalities have removed citizens from decision-making, who in
turn have rendered public policy suspect because of a lack of confidence
in the democratic system.

This political skepticism, as the myriad of small parties who have
little organization, inconspicuous ideologies, and murky proposals
consequently created a moldable alliance system and indecipherable
political game. However, there are some stable identifiable structures
in recent Haitian political history.

For example, former President Préval’s platform Inité (Unity, formerly
referred to as Lespwa, Hope) counting with a majority in the Senate and
partly representing the Fanmi Lavalas tendency (from former elected
President Aristide); and the Convention of political parties which
brings together 12 political parties and represents the Fanmi Lavalas
political group.

Another notable party includes the Mouvement de l’Opposition
Démocratique (“Democratic Opposition Movement,” MOPOD), an opposition
platform led by Mirlande Manigat, former ex-first lady before 2011 and
the unfortunate candidate for the 2011 elections.

To most Haitian citizens, politics seem to be little more than an
unseemly scramble by opportunistic charlatans fighting over the spoils
of office. To most people, their elected political officials seem to be
utterly devoid of any guiding principal, faithlessly switching
allegiances overnight, and accepting alliances with the very leaders
they so convincingly denounced just the day before. The political effect
of this is to remove ordinary voters from the decision-making process.
Given the endlessly shifting positions of all politicians, no one have
any real idea about what they might be voting for.

It is within this context that the long overdue elections for the
Chamber of Deputies and a third of the Senate, along with local and
municipal elections, were supposed to take place this year. Initially
scheduled for 2012, then 2013, and finally October 26, 2014, the
elections have now been delayed once again, this time indefinitely. It
is anyone’s guess when, or if they might be held at all.

President Martelly’s Pressure Led to a Legislative Blockage

On September 24, the Haitian Prime Minister, Laurent Lamothe, tried to
resolve the situation, promising that “we will continue working to
ensure that the elections take place as soon as possible. There … [has
been a pending] law in Parliament for more than 185 days,” Prime
Minister Lamothe explained, “[but it is] awaiting ratification by the
Senate, where there are six […] extremists who [are] block[ing] the
vote, so that the elections are not [being] held.”

The six senators are from the opposition grouping, mostly from Inite
such as Jean-Baptiste Bien-Aimé (elected in the department of the
North-East), Jean-Charles Moïse (elected in the department of the
North), Francky Exius (elected in the department of the South), John
Joël Joseph (elected in the department of the West), Westner Polycarpe
(from Altenativ party and elected in the department of the North), and
Jean William Jeanty (from Konba party, elected in the department of
Nippes).

In the opinion of this so-called “G-6” (group of six), the presidential
draft of the Electoral Law was adopted without any respect for the
Constitution or the legislative process. Legislators previously proposed
a first draft in 2011, but it was never ratified by President Martelly.
The G-6 criticize the way the executive power by decree imposed the
members of the Conseil Electoral Provisoire (Provisional Electoral
Council, CEP) to be in charge of ruling the electoral process.

As The Miami Herald pointed out, “[i]n addition to the senators, several
large political parties in Haiti are also opposed to the agreement and
were not part of the negotiations [the so-called El Rancho Accord]. In
addition to raising constitutional issues, Martelly’s opponents have
also raised questions about the formation of the CEP tasked with
organizing the vote”. Many feel that it is currently being controlled by
the President.”

International Support to an Authoritarian Electoral Process

The Permanent Council of the OAS, weighing in on the matter, blandly and
predictably called for the prompt carrying out of the overdue
elections. The Permanent Council expressed its, “deep concern for the
lack of progress in the electoral process” in Haiti, and urged all
political stakeholders to continue dialogue and to fulfill their
obligations under the Constitution. The OAS depicted the six senators as
the culprits in the electoral hold up.

“The Draft Electoral Act, an essential tool for organizing these
elections,” the OAS noted, “was passed on April 1 2014 by Haiti’s
Chamber of Deputies and immediately transmitted to the Senate for its
consideration and approval.” However, the OAS, pointed out, “no action
has been taken by the Senate” on this matter. Samantha Power, US
Ambassador to the UN, has echoed this outlook, noting with dismay that
“a group of six senators seems intent on holding elections hostage to
partisan concerns, even going so far as to prevent a debate on the
electoral law.”

However, Mirlande Manigat, Haitian constitutional scholar and runner up
in the 2011 presidential elections, blames President Martelly: “for
three years, he refused to call elections,” she said. “A large part of
this is his fault,” she added, “[and it is therefore] unfair to accuse
the six senators for the crisis.”

Last year, Sandra Honoré, the head of the UN Mission to Stabilize Haiti
(MINUSTAH), explained what caused the G-6 senators to unite: “Despite
the executive branch’s repeated public statements in favor of holding
the elections as soon as possible […] [it] had intentionally delayed the
process to ensure that Parliament would become non-functional.”

Despite this, problems are much deeper regarding political governance in
Haiti. The principal opposition party, Fanmi Lavalas, was not allowed
to participate in past presidential elections for questionable reasons,
which later led to a boycott of legislative elections. Besides the
boycott, some political actors of Fanmi Lavalas ran in the last
electoral race and got elected thanks to the Lespwa political platform
(and joined Inite), and represent now four senators of six who oppose
the actual draft of the Electoral Law.

Even with no official representation in the official bodies of the
State, Fanmi Lavalas is one of the strongest platforms in the country
and should be able to participate in the electoral process. The CEP
should also have the support of every political party in the country, in
order to avoid future electoral disputes.

Why Hold a Flawed Election?

The Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) concluded last month how
the United States and other countries involved in Haiti, having done no
more than making speeches each year calling for fair elections, “are now
willing to accept any sort of election”, even at the cost of violating
the Constitution. One of the ICG’s principle recommendations in their
February 2013 report was for Haiti to seek “to develop and promote more
genuinely representative, better-structured parties capable of
formulating and sustaining substantive platforms and playing a more
effective role in the country’s development.”

Only this, the ICG stated, would allow Haiti to achieve “truly inclusive
and competitive elections.” This seems accurate. Certainly Haiti needs
to hold elections, but after the fiasco in2010, with massive fraud and
less than a quarter of potential voters bothering to cast ballots, it is
highly doubtful that simply holding an election will resolve the
long-term problems of Haitian political life. It may be impossible to
have democracy without elections, but, as Haiti is proving, it is all
together possible to have elections and still not have anything close to
resembling democracy. What Haiti needs is a real democracy, and
elections alone will not accomplish that.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an
independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and
information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as
being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy
makers." For more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org

His
Excellency Mr Didacus Jules, Director General of the
Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States;

His
Excellency Mr Alfonso Múnera Cavadía, Secretary
General of the Association of Caribbean States;

Allow me to extend a warm welcome and to wish you
all a pleasant stay in our country.

It
gives us great pleasure to receive here the leaders
and representatives of the Caribbean family. We
share a common history of slavery, colonialism and
struggles for freedom, independence and development,
which is the melting pot where our cultures have
merged. We also face similar challenges that can
only be met through close unity and efficient
cooperation.

Photo:Juvenal
Balán

Such
is the meaning and purpose of these summits held
every three years, and aimed at fostering and
strengthening our fraternal engagement in
cooperation, solidarity and coordination to move
towards the necessary Latin American and Caribbean
integration; a dream of the forefathers of our
independence deferred for more than 200 years, and
which is today crucial to our survival.

The
successful evolution of CARICOM, the involvement of
all its member states and Cuba with the Community of
Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the
Association of Caribbean States (ACS) as well as the
participation of some of us in the Bolivarian
Alliance of the Peoples of Our America (ALBA-TCP)
and Petrocarib have helped to advance regional
integration, and we should continue working for its
consolidation.

Esteemed Heads of State or Government;

Guests;

Every year on this day we celebrate the anniversary
of the establishment of diplomatic relations with
Cuba by the first four nations of the Caribbean
Community to accede to independence.

As
comrade Fidel Castro Ruz stated at the commemoration
of the 30th anniversary of that seminal event,
“Probably, the leaders of these countries, also
considered the founding fathers of the independence
of their nations and of Caribbean integration,
–Errol Barrow from Barbados, Forbes Burnham from
Guyana, Michael Manley from Jamaica and Eric
Williams from Trinidad and Tobago—realised that
their decision to establish diplomatic relations
with Cuba was paving the way for the future foreign
policy of the Caribbean Community, which to this day
stands on three major pillars: independence, courage
and concerted action.” This statement remains fully
valid.

Forty-two years after that brave decision, we take
pride in our excellent relations with every country
in the Caribbean, and keep diplomatic missions in
every capital. And you also have diplomatic missions
in Havana; the most recent from St. Kits and Nevis
was officially opened last June 25th with our dear
friend the Very Honourable Prime Minister Denzil
Douglas in attendance.

This
moment seems fit to reaffirm that despite our
economic difficulties, and the changes undertaken to
upgrade our socioeconomic system, we will honour our
pledge to cooperate and share our modest
achievements with our sister nations in the
Caribbean.

Currently, we have 1,806 collaborators working in
the CARICOM countries, 1,461 of them in the area of
healthcare. Likewise, 4,991 Caribbean youths have
graduated in Cuba while 1,055 remain studying in the
Island.

Additionally, we are cooperating with the Caribbean,
and shall continue to do so, in preventing and
fighting the Ebola pandemic. This we are doing
bilaterally as well as in the framework of ALBA and
CELAC, with the support of the World Health
Organisation (WHO) and the Pan American Health
Organisation (PAHO).

The
experts’ meeting held in Havana at the end of
October brought together specialists from the entire
hemisphere, including representatives of
non-independent Caribbean states. In the past few
weeks, 61 officials, physicians, experts in
healthcare and other areas from CARICOMN countries
have been training in Cuba. On the other hand, we
are answering the request of nine CARICOM States to
provide Cuban assistance in training their
countries’ medical staff.

As
small island states and developing nations we are
facing the challenge of surviving and making
progress in a world shaken by a global economic
crisis manifested in the financial and energy
sectors, the environment and the food sector, deadly
diseases and war conflicts. Today, I want to
reiterate Cuba’s unwavering decision to support,
under any circumstances, the right of the small and
vulnerable countries to be accorded a special and
differential treatment in terms of access to trade
and investments.

The
challenges of the 21st century are forcing us to
unite in order to face together the effects of
climate change and natural disasters, to coordinate
our approach to the post-2015 development agenda,
and particularly, to tackle together the domination
mechanisms imposed by the unfair international
financial system.

We
join our voice to those of the Caribbean Community
in demanding the immediate removal of our nations
from unilateral lists that jeopardize our economic
development and commercial exchanges with other
countries.

Special attention is warranted by cooperation in
confronting the effects of climate change. The rise
of the sea level is threatening the very existence
of many of our countries. The more frequent
hurricanes, intensive rains and other phenomena are
causing huge economic and human damages. We are left
with no choice but to reinforce our coordination in
order to confront this reality and reduce its major
impact on water resources, coastal areas and marine
species; biological diversity, agriculture and human
settlements.

Cuba
has conducted studies of dangers, vulnerabilities
and risks and is already implementing a
macro-project named “Coastal Dangers and
Vulnerabilities 2050-2100”. These include projects
on the health condition of the coastal dunes and
mangroves as well as an evaluation of the beaches,
coastal settlements and their infrastructure; we are
willing to share this experience with our sister
nations of CARICOM.

We
have lots of work to do. As we have indicated, in
the coming three- year period, with the modest
contribution of Cuba, a Regional Arts School will be
opened in Jamaica and the Centre for Development
Stimulation of children, teenagers and youths with
special educational needs will start operating in
Guyana.

On
the other hand, more Caribbean students will be
given the opportunity to pursue a college education
in our country, especially in the area of Medicine.
We will also help in the preparation of experts from
the CARICOM countries in topics related to
mitigation and confrontation of risks of natural
disasters, and the difficult stage of recovery in
the aftermath of such events.

Likewise, we shall continue offering our fraternal
assistance in the development of human resources and
in medical care. In the same token, doctors
graduated in Cuba and working in their respective
countries will be offered the possibility of
studying a second specialty free of charge.

The
development of trade and investments between our
countries is still an unresolved issue. The
difficulties with air and maritime transportation in
the sub-region and the deterioration of our
economies as a result of the international crisis
are having a negative effect on progress in these
areas. We should work toward creative and feasible
solutions of benefit to all. In this connection, we
welcome the joint efforts to update and review the
Bilateral Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which
will provide the free access with no customs duties
of 297 products from CARICOM countries and 47 from
Cuba.

I
want to take this opportunity to reaffirm our
steadfast support for the just demand of the CARICOM
countries to be compensated by the colonial powers
for the horrors of slavery, and for their equally
fair claim to receive cooperation according to their
real situation and necessities, and not on the basis
of statistics of their per capita income that simply
characterise them as middle-income countries and
prevent their access to indispensable flows of
financial resources.

It
is our inescapable duty to support the
reconstruction and development of the sister
republic of Haiti, the birthplace of the first
revolution in Latin America and the Caribbean fought
in pursuit of independence, for we all have a debt
of gratitude with that heroic and long-suffering
people.

As I
have said on previous occasions, Cubans are deeply
grateful to our brothers and sisters in the
Caribbean for your upright stance of respect for and
solidarity with our Homeland.

We
shall never forget your enduring support to the
resolution against the blockade nor your numerous
expressions of solidarity during the debates at the
UN General Assembly and other international fora,
rejecting the illegitimate inclusion of Cuba in the
List of States Sponsors of Terrorism.

Distinguished Heads of State or Government;

Guests;

I
would like to suggest that in this 5th CARICOM-Cuba
Summit we exchange viable ideas and proposals to
continue working together to increase our bilateral
cooperation; to expand and diversify our economic
and commercial relations; to confront the challenges
imposed by the globalized, unfair and unequal world
we live in fraught with grave problems that threaten
the very existence of humankind; and, above all, to
advance with steadier steps toward the indispensable
political, economic and social integration of Latin
America and the Caribbean.

We
owe it to our peoples and such duty cannot be
postponed.

With
no further delay I declare the 5th CARICOM-Cuba
Summit officially opened.

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Mérida, 5th December 2014 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – The 12
member Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) has taken a step toward
creating South American citizenship and freedom of movement. Venezuelan
president Nicolas Maduro also called for strategies to promote
continental economic development, social equality and defence
sovereignty.

The new proposals for South American integration were made during a
UNASUR summit in Guayaquil, Ecuador yesterday. Today regional leaders
are meeting in the Ecuadorian capital Quito for the opening of the
organisation’s new permanent headquarters.

Taking place over two days, the summit in Guayaquil sought to design strategies to further develop regional integration.

“We have approved the concept of South American citizenship. This
should be the greatest register of what has happened,” said UNASUR
general secretary Ernesto Samper at the summit yesterday.

Part of this proposal is to create a “single passport” and homologate
university degrees in order to give South Americans the right to live,
work and study in any UNASUR country and to give legal protection to
migrants – similar to freedom of movement rules for citizens of the
European Union.

For Samper, who is a former Colombian president, they key word at the
meeting was “convergence” to continue integration. “Convergence of
citizens, convergence of similarities, and convergence of solidarity are
the proposals of this effort to bring us together,” he said.

Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, argued that the statutes of
UNASUR should be changed and that majorities, rather than absolute
consensus, should be the minimum necessary basis on which to advance
important areas of integration.

In particular, Correa called for the advancement of financial
integration and sovereignty, such as the Bank of the South and Reserve
Fund, a currency exchange system to minimise the use of the dollar in
intercontinental trade, the creation of a regional body to settle
financial disputes, and a common currency “in the medium term”.

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro agreed that the creation of new
financial instruments was central to advancing regional integration and
sovereignty.

“From Venezuela we believe that we must take the agenda of shared
economic development into our hands; a new financial architecture [that
includes] the Bank of Structural Projects, that converts us into a
powerful bloc,” he said to media in Guayaquil before the meeting with
other UNASUR leaders.

The two other priorities for the Venezuelan government at the meeting
were to promote strategies for social equality and regional defence
sovereignty.

On defence, Maduro said that Venezuela would support a “new South
American military doctrine” based on a “system of education for South
American militaries, below the guidance of the South American Defence
Council,” in which the thought of the continent’s 19th century independence leaders would be present.

Another important event at the summit was the passing of the pro tempore presidency of the UNASUR from Suriname to Uruguay.

Outgoing Uruguayan president Jose Mujica made a passionate speech
while accepting the presidency on behalf of his country, where he
stated, “There won’t be integration without commitment, willpower, and
political will, because the global obstacles are enormous and the past
continues to constrain us”.

Meanwhile, respected former Brazilian president Lula Da Silva
declared, "Today our main challenge is to deepen the construction of
strategic thought of Latin America and the Caribbean. We can construct
an integration project that is more daring, that takes advantage of the
formation of our rich history, goods and cultures”.

The UNASUR was created in 2008. Its members are: Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname,
Uruguay and Venezuela.

Saturday, December 6, 2014

When the young man we now know as Anson Aly said the words “they
don’t want to start something they can’t finish”, a lot of Bahamians
were up in arms. We got angry, we went to Facebook to vent. We called
the radio shows. Everyone had their say.

The “fire starter” Anson Aly - AKA Mr. Colombian Necktie

Then we calmed down and went back to being typical Bahamians. Nothing
mattered again until the November 1st Immigration Policy changes kicked
in. By now, we’ve all see the images of immigration officers doing
their duty and the negative spin put on it by Haitian activists Jetta
Baptiste and others. We’ve also seen the “lurkers” assist in stirring up
the “us against them” discord. I have very little doubt that Special
Intelligence Branch officers are tuning in and taking notes because the
rhetoric and tone has become increasingly hostile.

So much so that you had Ms. Baptiste stirring up the pot with what
appears to be the most corrupt politician in south Florida calling for a
boycott of the Bahamas. Mind you, she’s seeking economic sanctions on a
country where a significant portion of the population are her people.
Haitians. What does she think will happen? A boycott of The Bahamas
means those menial jobs that Haitians risk life and limb for will
evaporate. The poor will become poorer in that community. It was clearly
a stupid thought by a stupid person put into words for the benefit of a
camera. But it was also a very beneficial thing for Bahamians who seem
too comfortable flinging the doors open to whomever and allowing anyone
to carry our name, our passport and our patronage.

How was it beneficial? Well, I can speak for myself and say that it
exposed the deep rooted resentment many in the Haitian community appear
to harbor towards this country and it’s people, although few of the
Haitian leaders have been courageous enough to explain why. Why do they
hate us so when we’ve given them our hospitality, our concern, our
friendship, our country? Why? This series of events have pulled a scab
off of a wound that can only be a case of coveting thy neighbor. We all
know the problems that country has faced since fighting for it’s
independence. Many say it is a cursed land. No need to go there. But the
history of our two countries has always been intertwined with this
country offering it’s all to the beleaguered who would end up here, even
if their ultimate destination was somewhere else.

For me personally, it’s left a very very bitter taste in my mouth.
You see, I have always been open minded about the plight of the Haitian
people and how integration and assimilation by them into this country
could be a good thing if they went all in. I now suspect going all in
has not been the case in many in whom I’ve trusted. I’ll tell you a true
story about Louby Georges to illustrate what many Bahamians in my
position are calling a betrayal.

Louby Georges' Betrayal

I
hired Louby many years ago to do a job. He had braids, the gold tooth,
the Sentra with the Haitian flag on it. It didn’t matter to me after the
second day on a difficult job when he showed up on time, worked hard
and never really complained. I liked him. He put in the work and he
earned every dollar he was paid. I hired him again a few weeks later for
the same kind of work and once again, he proved himself a hard worker.
He brought his older brother, who was also a serious worker. His brother
didn’t last as long but still, I was impressed. Fast forward a couple
of years later and I’m watching Cable 12 thinking, ‘let me see what
folks are putting on TV as shows. ‘

I had not watched local television for years because, let’s face it,
it sucks. Imagine my surprise when I saw Louby hosting a kreyol language
show on Cable 12. I found him on Facebook and I sent him a note. I told
him I would have no problems helping him make his show better and for a
few months, we worked on it. We even shot a pilot. For whatever reason,
things did not work out but I kept encouraging him to become a voice
for his people and those in the position he was in at the time having
been born here but had to wait until 18 to apply for citizenship and
then wait yet again for it to be approved. As far as I am concerned, we
are cool.

I invited him on my show Unscripted on Island FM. We were supposed to
do a regular thing and he was eager but that didn’t quite pan out.

We were cool even when he called me and told me he was gearing up to
do the radio show. I gave him some advice again. I told him to own his
show. Be a partner with the station and to not back down on percentages
of ad revenue. I’m quite proud of him.

But a funny thing happened when the Anson Aly incident happened. My
other Haitian friends would call and say “if you are not listening to
Louby’s show, you should. He’s dissing you.” Being the loyal person I
am, I’d say, yeah right. Not my Louby. When Steve McKinney decided this
whole incident was an opportunity for him to get more than a dozen
people to listen to his lies, he called me “irresponsible”. My other
Haitian friends said “he’s joining the bandwagon with Steve. You should
call him.” I did. We didn’t get to do the interview however. I know he’s
read this blog and I hope he reads this because I feel the community,
Bahamians and Haitians, are being misled by people with agendas unknown.
I feel that they are being mislead by people with no business seeking
to lead them anywhere. My other Haitian friends says he’s one of the
leaders.

I don’t draw any conclusions but the evidence is mounting. I’ll leave that there.

There is no problem between us as people. There is, however, a spirit
of disrespect that has been fermenting and has been obviously
fertilized by people like Jetta Baptiste. What my friend Louby risks is
being lumped in in that grouping of angry Bahamian hating Haitians who
have now suddenly found a cause to celebrate. They are aggressively
patriotic to Haiti but will quickly say “we don’t know that country”
when the prospect of being sent there looms. They see Bahamians as the
enemy. I’ve read countless posts on Facebook attacking me, my country,
my people by folks who live or have lived here. One poor lady prayed for
a tsunami to destroy the Bahamas. Two days later, flash floods struck
Haiti and 6 died. I’ve had my reporter and myself threatened when we
attempted to cover a meeting of Haitians. I’ve had people deny it, even
though a camera was in fact rolling.

Hater Jetta Baptiste

The distrust has deepened between our people and I think the
aggressors in this are the ones with the most to lose. The Haitians.
This is OUR country and by OUR, I mean Bahamians. There will come a time
when the hospitality will turn to something else. When that happens,
thousands of desperate Haitians will have nowhere to go. They will have
no landing point, no second choice if America isn’t the first dry land
they touch when they set out on those rickety boats. For them, where
disease, starvation and death is a daily struggle, it will be a horrible
thing. For them, this country offers hope. For many I am sure, they
would trade this country for theirs in a heartbeat. In my heart, I know
they don’t support Daphne Campbell, Jetta Baptiste and all the other
angry Haitians who hate The Bahamas and it’s people. I know they would
take whatever opportunity to be in our country legally seriously and not
say the things that Jetta has been saying or doing the things that she
and others are doing.

You see, those ones, those are the ones you call the “good Haitians”. This crew? Well, you can judge for yourself.

Caricom Today: CARICOM Cuba Leaders to talk trade in Havana

Economic and Trade Relations will be among the issues discussed at
the Fifth Summit of the Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community
(CARICOM) and Cuba which takes place in Havana, Cuba on Monday 8
December. The Summit will be preceded on Sunday by a meeting of the
Foreign Ministers.

In accordance with the Havana Declaration of December 2002, the
Summit is held every three ye - ars on the date that the leaders of
Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago broke a diplomatic
embargo and visited Cuba. That date December 8 has been designated
CARICOM-Cuba Day.

Monday’s meeting will give the Leaders an opportunity to look at the
present situation with the Trade and Economic Agreement which the two
parties signed in 2000. They will benefit from the result of discussion
held last October in Havana by the CARICOM-Cuba Joint Commission which
sought ways of making the Agreement more effective.

The two sides will also discuss strengthening co-operation in
multi-lateral fora. This assumes added importance in light of the
on-going global negotiations for a Climate Change Agreement and the
upcoming negotiations on the United Nations Post 2015 Development
Agenda.

Chairman of CARICOM the Honourable Gaston Browne, Prime Minister of
Antigua and Barbuda, His Excellency Raoul Castro Ruz, president of Cuba
and His Excellency Ambassador Irwin LaRocque, Secretary-General of
CARICOM will address Monday’s Opening Ceremony at the Place of the
Revolution.

Death Penalty 'Unlikely' Without Legal Challenges

CONSTITUTIONAL
Commission Chairman Sean McWeeney said recent comments about the end of
hanging by Court of Appeal justices reflects opposition the London-based
Privy Council has to the death penalty.

It
reflects, he said, the unlikelihood that the death penalty will be
carried out unless substantial changes are made to the legal and
judicial system of this country.

Court
of Appeal Justices on Wednesday suggested that “hanging is over” as
they quashed the death sentence of Anthony Clarke Sr, who was convicted
last year of killing his friend Aleus Tilus as part of a contract
killing in 2011.

The
justices’ statements raised concern among some yesterday who wondered
if it set a new precedent for the court as it relates to dealing with
death penalty appeals.

When
contacted for comment yesterday, Mr McWeeney, a Queen’s Counsel,
explained: “The statement (by the justices) was made off the cuff and
emerged during the course of give-and-take with counsel. This was not
some formal, deeply considered pronouncement. They were correctly
characterising the current state of play given the position of the Privy
Council.

“Their
statements are not fundamentally different from what we in the
Constitutional Commission have been saying based on jurisprudence coming
out of the Privy Council. There is essentially a philosophical
objective guiding this jurisprudence. The Privy Council is
philosophically opposed to the death penalty and have curtailed the law
to achieve objectives in line with its beliefs. They’ve put a series of
obstacles in the way to impede and quite frankly prevent the death
penalty from being meted out.”

The mandatory death sentence was changed in 2006 after the Privy Council ruled it was unconstitutional.

In
2011, after a ruling from the Privy Council, the Ingraham
administration amended the death penalty law to specify the “worst of
the worst” murders which would warrant execution.

A
person who kills a police or defence force officer, member of the
Departments of Customs or Immigration, judiciary or prison services
would be eligible for a death sentence. A person would also be eligible
for death once convicted of murdering someone during a rape, robbery,
kidnapping or act of terrorism.

In Wednesday’s case, the Court of Appeal suggested there was never going to be a “worst of the worst” case.

“I
sympathise with you because there’s never going to be a worst of the
worst, because you’re never going to reach that threshold given that
there will always be a worse case to follow,” said Court of Appeal
President Justice Anita Allen.

On
this issue, Mr McWeeney said: “It’s quite clear (the Privy Council) has
been very disingenuous characterising what is the worst of the worst.

“It
all points to the fact that the Privy Council has demonstrated
consistently that it will not hesitate to find some pretext, some
reason, however legally spurious, to achieve their philosophical
objective. Against that, Caribbean countries with similar constitutional
systems as ours have been looking for ways to overcome this resistance.
One thought was to replace the Privy Council with the Caribbean Court
of Justice. However, nothing in that system exists to give cause for
optimism that their position would be any different from the Privy
Council. There have been judgments from that court to lead one to
believe their position would be no different. So it’s not going to
happen just because you get rid of the Privy Council and put in place
the Caribbean Court of Justice.

“That
leaves only one possibility and that is to think in terms of amending
the Constitution in a way that would tie the hands of the Privy
Council,” he added. “Remove the very large discretion the Privy Council
has in terms of deciding the circumstances which constitutes ‘worst of
the worst’. A solution is to (put in the Constitution) the criteria that
would have to be applied on a mandatory basis by the Privy Council,
which would define what is the worst of the worst cases. Of course, this
could only take place after holding a referendum.”

Mr McWeeney said a draft has been created to amend the Constitution in order to define which crimes must be punishable by death.

“That
draft is not something that they are dealing with right now because the
focus is on gender equality,” he said, referring to next year’s
expected constitutional referendum. “Political parties would have to
decide where they want that issue to stand in the queue. It’s certainly
not in the cards for this round (of proposed constitutional
amendments).”

Sunday, November 23, 2014

US President Barak Obama's
immigration plan announced Thursday is to be commended for allowing
undocumented yet otherwise law-abiding immigrants to "come out of the
shadows and get right with the law."

However, it
overlooks one important aspect – the reason why Latinos risk their lives
to illegally enter the US in the first place. If their living situation
back home were decent enough, they would have little reason to want to
leave.

But the
situation back home for many Latinos is hardly worth sticking around
for. Take, for example, the most recent case of the 19-year old Honduran
beauty queen María José Alvarado, murdered alongside her 23-year old
sister Sofía just days before she was due to compete in the Miss World
pageant in London.

The case has helped to shed light on
Honduras' plight as the country with the highest homicide rate in the
world. The killings highlight the fragility of the security situation
and expose the weak institutions in the Central American country.

Sadly, this is not the first time the death of a beauty queen
has brought attention to violence in some Latin American countries. The
region rang in the new year with the untimely demise of former Miss
Venezuela, Mónica Spear, and her British ex-husband, murdered by
roadside burglars.

Not to mention the nationwide protests gripping Mexico
over the apprehension, disappearance and suspected murder of 43
students from Iguala, which has spun into public outcry over the
entrenched collusion between state and organized crime, which gives way
to human rights violations.

Regarding crime, Obama's
policy proposes to deport "felons, not families" and "criminals, not
children. Gang members, not a mom who's working hard to provide for her
kids."

While this would seem to make sense for those living in the US, the policy could actually be 'exporting' the gang culture
cultivated within US borders to its southern neighbors, who are much
weaker and unprepared to confront the influx of violent criminals,
thereby exacerbating the problem in Latin America.

So what
can the US do to make the situation better south of the border? Given
the geophysical proximity, one would think that boosting trade, and
thereby increasing business and making more money go around, would
behoove both sides.

However, as we previously noted, Obama showed scant interest in Latin America
during his first term in office, with a foreign policy focus on Asia
and the Middle East. That has largely continued to this day, with the
likes of the Islamic State and related issues getting the lion's share of his attention.

In LatAm, according to the World Bank'sDoing Business report,
countries such as Colombia and Mexico shot up in the 2015 ranking while
other more solid economies like Chile and Peru remained relatively
stable. The pieces are starting to fall into place, and Obama ought to
jump at the opportunity to strengthen the relationship with Latin
America as a way to preemptively address the immigration puzzle.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

COMMUNICATION BY THE HONOURABLE FRED MITCHELL MP MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND IMMIGRATION HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY, NASSAU, THE BAHAMAS (NOVEMBER 19, 2014) UPDATE TO THE HOUSE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY

I wish Mr. Speaker to repeat to the House the policy of the government
on Immigration announced on 30th October of this year. This concretized
months of work announcing that these changes were coming. This
announcement should therefore not have been a surprise to anyone.

The public is reminded that as of 1st November 2014 the following will apply:

No applications will be accepted in The Bahamas for first-time work
permit applicants who have no legal status in The Bahamas. All
first-time applicants for work permits without legal status in The
Bahamas will have to be certified as having been seen by The Bahamas
Embassy in their home country or the nearest Consular Office of The
Bahamas. There are no exceptions to this rule.

This does not apply to renewals once those are made before the current permit expires.

As of 1st November, 2014 the Passport Office will no longer issue
Certificates of Identity to those persons born of non-nationals in The
Bahamas. Those individuals who have valid Certificates of Identity must
now obtain the passport of their nationality and apply for a residency
permit which will show that they have a right to live and work in The
Bahamas. There are no exceptions to this except in accordance with our
international treaty obligations.

A Special Residency Permit will
be available for those individuals who have the right to apply for
Bahamian citizenship at the age of 18 and before their 19th birthday.
The processing fee is 100 dollars and the annual permit is 25 dollars.
These permits will only be issued to those persons whose parents are
lawfully in The Bahamas. This will allow the holder to live, work and
go to school in The Bahamas until such time as their citizenship status
is determined. These are obtained upon application at the Department of
Immigration. Applications can be obtained for the special permit
beginning on Monday 3rd November.

All people who live and work in
The Bahamas are reminded that it is prudent to have a document on your
person, at all times, which shows that you have a right to live and work
in The Bahamas.

The public is asked to be patient as the new policies unfold.

Any comments on the policy may be addressed to the Director of Immigration.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration thanks the public for their support and cooperation.
Since that time there have been unfortunate reports mainly by way of
social media which have the effect of poisoning the well with regard to
these policies. Let me repeat: The policies are generic. They are not
targeted at any particular national group.

The policies are a
logical consequence of the constitution which we have which does not
confer citizenship by birth on children born in this country whose
parents are not Bahamian. That is what we inherited and that is what we
work with.

The policies have been described in various ways by
people who seem not to wish The Bahamas any good. The names do not bear
repeating. The Prime Minister has described one critics' statements as
nonsense so I will go no further than that. That characterizes in my
view so much of the ill-informed commentary about this.

If you
will permit me a personal observation however while one must be
cognizant of the international dimension, these policies are for The
Bahamas and the only question Bahamians need to ask is whether it is in
the best interest of the country.

My surmise of the reaction to
the chord which this has struck in The Bahamas is that this strikes at
the very identity of the country and many feel that the country’s future
is threatened if actions are not taken to stem the tide of illegal and I
stress illegal migration.

I do not speak in those apocalyptic
terms but what I know is that law and order requires us to act to stem
the tide of boat after boat after boat coming to this country seemingly
unimpeded with hundreds of people on those boats with no visa, no means
of taking care of themselves and no jobs. That becomes a national
security problem. No government can stand still in the face of that.
We faced that situation in at least two months during this past year.

We have repatriated over 3000 people to their home countries this year. The cost is unsustainable.

The Detention Centre is again at capacity, just two weeks after a repatriation exercise.

There are two flights scheduled to depart next week.

So mathematics dictates this course of action.

I repeat: immigration is a blunt instrument. It is not social work.
It is a policing action and requires difficult and hard decisions.
Decision making goes in this cycle: the policy, its implementation, the
reaction. The first reaction is resistance in some quarters. This
test of the officials by those who oppose it is to see if it will shake
your resolve by creating alarm in the society, the press and the world
community. If we do not flinch, then that is the first indication to
them that the psychological climate in which the law enforcement is
operating has changed. It sends out a signal that this is a place that
illegal migrants should not come. It is that psychological mindset that
we are seeking to break.

While many have concentrated on the
campaign of misinformation, I would rather share with you what has been
said about the policy that is positive:

I quote: “It concerned us
greatly when we heard the vicious and unfair comments fielded against
The Bahamas by Mrs. Daphne Campbell. Neither Mrs. Campbell or Mrs. Jetta
Baptiste reside in The Bahamas, and therefore, we do not feel that they
have the authority to speak on behalf of Haitians and people of Haitian
descent in this country in the tone and manner in which they have
spoken. While they are free to express their opinions, we wish to make
our position clear that we oppose their suggestions that the Bahamas
should be boycotted by Americans and other nationalities via its tourism
product." – United Association of Haitians and Bahamians.

I wish
to share the results of the poll published by Umwale Rahming of Public
Domain and reported by Candia Dames of the Nassau Guardian on Monday
17th November 2014:

The sample size is 520; this is
scientifically an accurate predictor of general public opinion I am
advised for our population size:

Do you approve of the policy?

85.4 per cent said yes

With 69.4 strongly approving and 16 per cent somewhat approving and 11.8 per cent disapproving.

Do you think the new policy should be applied to both parents and children or just parents?

71 per cent said to both parents and children.

Do you think the government is doing the right thing despite the criticism in some quarters of it being too harsh?
63.2 per cent said yes, 27.9 per cent agree with the policy but wishes it were executed in a another way.

Does this new policy make you feel that the government is showing leadership?
59.5 per cent said yes

33.9 per cent said no

6.6 per cent didn’t know

The writer is Candia Dames, not known to support the work of this
government, and she wrote: “National Review has no doubt that local
support for the immigration policy will continue to hold strong. We
hope that it is sustained and intensified. On the immigration issue the
Government seems to be getting it right.”

The Leader of the Opposition made the following statement yesterday:

“We are one when it comes to the protection of our sovereignty. The
FNM believes that in the main, the actions being taken by the
administration are right and will redound to the benefit of The Bahamas
in the long term.”

Mr. Speaker, this suggests that this policy
has as close to a universal approval that you can have in this country. I
believe that is an historic first and I believe that this House and
this generation ought to salute itself for this unique accomplishment in
our history.

It is a consensus that we should not misuse or
abuse but we should seek to keep the consensus and to act in a humane
but dispassionate way to ensure that the sovereignty of our country is
protected.

I undertake to protect that consensus and to work with my opposite number, the Shadow Minister, in that regard.

I have been authorized by the Cabinet to speak with the Bahamian
community in Miami on Saturday at a meeting at St Agnes Church Hall at 6
p.m. and to meet with the Secretary General at the Organization of
American States and the CARICOM Caucus in Washington at the earliest
opportunity.

I have already met with the International
Organization for Migration (IOM) here in Nassau. I asked them whether
they can play a role in supporting the capacity of our neighbours to the
south to produce their national passports. We have been advised by the
press that some difficulties may arise with that. For the record, we
had earlier received assurances as early as the 28th July that the
production of passports would not have been a problem.

The Prime
Minister has met with the leaders of certain national groups in this
country and they have made various suggestions that are being examined.
However, it is important to say that The Bahamas should do nothing which
signals to the world that our resolve on this issue is slackening or
weakening. That would be a grave error and sabotage our future best
interests.

I spoke to the 32 men and women of the Enforcement
Unit of the Department of Immigration this morning who are headed by
Kirk at the Department of Immigration in the presence of the Director
William Pratt. They are concerned about whether their work is supported.
I assured them that it is. The Leader of the Opposition in his
statement has gone out of his way to make the point of their
professionalism in carrying of their jobs. They have the support of the
government.

I thanked them for their work and asked them once
again to be safe, to be respectful to be humane but be disciplined and
apply the law without fear or favour.

By Clément Doleac
Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Dictatorship and human rights violations in Haiti

In the past five decades, Haitian people have suffered systematic human
rights violations that were rarely condemned, thus preventing any state
from having real democratic institutions and impeding any democratic
political regime to exist.

From 1957 to 1986, the Duvalier family exerted a harsh dictatorship in
Haiti without respect for fundamental human rights, such as rights of
association, social rights, of economic rights and cultural rights.
These dictatorships received millions in US government aid under various
security and humanitarian reasons because of their role as a bulwark
against communism (such as the Trujillo dictatorship in Dominican
Republic).[1]

After being elected in 1957 and having served in office for seven years,
Francois Duvalier proclaimed himself president for life in 1964. When
he died in 1971, his son Jean-Claude dynastically took office, who was
strongly supported by the US as part of an anti-communist shield in the
country.[2] Jean-Claude fled the country due to mass protests and
political opposition against the authoritarian rule.[3] He departed on
February 7, 1986, flying to France in a US Air Force aircraft,
illustrating how he consistently benefited from the intrusive behavior
of neo-colonial powers.[4]

During the Duvalier dictatorship, thousands of recalcitrant opponents of
Duvalier were murdered, directly or indirectly by the military and the
Tonton Macoute, while abductions, extra-judiciary execution, rape, and
torture were also common practices as well. The state and its agents
were responsible for humiliating treatment, thefts, extortions, and
expropriations.[5] Around 100,000 Haitians sought asylum in foreign
countries, such as the Dominican Republic, the US base of Guantanamo,
and Florida, as well as Europe and other Latin American countries.
Nearly 300,000 persons sought refuge from Port-au-Prince to more remote
parts of Haiti.

After a transition period, the democratically elected popular priest
Jean-Bertrand Aristide came to office. In a constitutionalist action,
his ascension happened against a background of right-wing death squads
and the threat of military coups. As Haiti expert Paul Farmer once
stated, “Aristide was seen as a threat in the US.” The New York Times
wrote, in one of is more pathetic moments, pictured Aristide as “a cross
between the Ayatollah and Fidel”.[6] The Haitian economic elite shared
this dislike. As one Haitian businessman put it: “If it comes to a
choice between the ultra-left and the ultra-right, I’m ready to form an
alliance with the ultra-right”.[7] Nonetheless, Aristide was elected on
December 16, 1990, by an overwhelming 67 percent of the vote in a field
of 12 candidates.[8] No run-off was required.

In fact, the Haitian elite allied with high-ranking members of the
Haitian army and Haitian National Intelligence Service (SIN) to conspire
against the elected president. They were able to successfully overthrow
Aristide in a military coup the following year.[9]

Return to Democracy and Interference in the Hopeful Elected Presidency of Haiti

After three years of terror, Mr Jean Bertrand Aristide came back into
office in 1994 for a short amount of time in order to finish his term as
elected president. During his two years in office, Aristide abolished
the Haitian army, and in 1996 became the first elected civilian to see
another elected civilian, René Préval, succeed him as president. Préval
himself had the distinction of becoming Haiti’s first president ever to
serve out his term, neither a day more nor less than was his due.[10] In
November 2000, Aristide was reelected again for a four-year term.

Aristide’s second term, however, was undermined by the governments of
the US and France. US government hostility had been no secret since
1991, and the historical support that Washington had for the Haitian
military was clearly evident. Rebel leader Guy Philippe, for example,
had received training during the last coup at a US military facility in
Ecuador. Philippe was known to have executed several pro-democracy
activists, including Louis-Jodel Chamblain. Philippe had fled Haiti in
October 2000, when the authorities discovered him plotting a coup with a
group of security forces officials.[11]

For its part, the French government was insulted by Aristide due to his
ongoing claims about a debt France owed to Haiti. Aristide stated that
France “extorted this money from Haiti by force and should give it back
to us so that we can build primary schools, primary healthcare, water
systems and roads”.[12] He had done calculations, adding in interest and
adjusting for inflation, “to calculate that France owes Haiti
US$21,685,135,571.48 and counting”.[13]

In 2002 and 2003, several incidents occurred in the countryside during
by the US-backed right-wing militia. These included the killing of a
number of Aristide’s supporters and members of the far left-wing militia
(the so-called chimeres, “chimeras”). A raging civil war was soon
underway. In 2003, the Canadian government hosted the Ottawa Initiative
for Haiti in Montreal in order to determine the future of Haiti’s
government. Officials from Canada, France, the US and various Latin
American countries were present, yet no Haitian officials attended. The
conference resulted in an expressed preference for regime change in
Haiti in less than a year.[14]

The right-wing militia took over control of several cities in 2003 and
Cap-Haitien, the second most important city in the country, in February
2004.[15] The militia received support from sectors of Haiti’s elite as
well as from sectors of the Dominican military and government cohorts at
the time. It is also believed that they had contact with U.S. and
French intelligence.[16]

Despite massive protests supporting Aristide in Port-au-Prince and the
acceptance of an international peace plan by President Aristide on
February 21, the US and French governments, “invited” Aristide to leave
the country in order to bring peace and security again to the country.
In fact, the US military “accompanied for his own security” the
constitutionally elected president on a US Air Force flight.

The Dissident Voice reports that since then “a quasi UN trusteeship had
begun. Since that time the Haitian National Police has been heavily
militarized and steps have been taken towards recreating the
military”.[17] With the end of Aristide’s second presidential term,
human rights violations have begun to rise again. [18]

Impunity in Haiti under United Nations’ MINUSTAH presence

In 2005, the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of
the United Nations stated that the human rights violations that were
being found in Haiti still exist but did not derive from the state or
government but the system. More specifically they emanated from two
antagonistic and elderly armed sectors of the population. The first
consisted mostly of paramilitaries and ex-militaries (the Army had been
disbanded in 2005) with the objective of destabilizing the leftist
government. The second was composed of Aristides’s supporters rebelling
against him through the creation of the Front de Resistance Nationale
(FRN, “National Liberation Front”). The resulting insurrection had led
to the interposition of a United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti,
also known as MINUSTAH, over the last nine years.

Twenty-two lawsuits dealing with crimes against humanity were filed
against Jean-Claude Duvalier regarding the crimes perpetrated during his
dictatorship when he returned to Haiti in 2011. Nonetheless, Judge Jean
Carves waived every lawsuit against him within a short time. In 2014,
an appellate court declared that the lawsuits for crimes against
humanity were valid, but Duvalier died in October 2014, which was before
the statement was made. As for the violations committed by private
groups and Aristide’s supporters and opponents, most cases still go
unpunished but his estate of many millions remains an irresistible lure.

From “Yes, We Can” to “No, You Can’t”: U.S. Military Occupation after the 2010 Earthquake

The election of President Obama led to high hopes for a dramatic change
in US foreign policy in Haiti, but these were crushed by the harsh
reality of the continuity of American foreign policy, which has proven
not to roam from their grim past.

In January 2010, just after a major earthquake shook the country,
President Obama sent the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) to Haiti in
order to “secure” Port-au-Prince’s airport. After three days, SOUTHCOM’s
deployed around 22,000 members of the US military throughout the
country and a US Navy and Coast Guard flotilla surrounded the island as
if perhaps Haiti had decided to declare war on the United States, an
unsheathed memory of a troubled past.[19] The United States took full
command of Haiti’s airport and airspace without any regards to questions
of national sovereignty, and the US government restricted all entry and
exit from the country. The actions did little to improve the country’s
recovery efforts.[20]

The heavy US military presence in Haiti after the earthquake turned out
to be but a part of Obama’s larger strategy of containment of Hugo
Chavez’s Venezuela. Former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush
were chosen to lead the US civilian response, and the US government
established an Interim Haiti Reconstruction Commission with Clinton as
co-chair in order to effectively control every aspect of Haiti’s
economics and politics.[21]

The Violation of Democracy in the Name of Stability: The 2011 Elections in Haiti

Additionally, one of the priorities of the Obama administration was to
effectively hijack the Haitian electoral process in 2011. The Center for
Economic and Policy research (CEPR) released a report after the 2011
elections displaying many of the problems that had occurred with the
election.[22] The Organization of American States (OAS) concluded that
the elections represented a political decision rather than an electoral
one. Many citizens displaced by the earthquake were not allowed to vote,
and fewer than 23 percent of registered voters had their vote
counted.[23] In addition, numerous electoral violations were reported
including ballot stuffing, destroyed ballots, and intimidation.

Former First Lady Mirlande Manigat won the first round of the election
and had to run off against a second opponent. OAS election observers
chose to “examine the results”, which led to the removal of the
governing party’s candidate Jude Celestin of the Inite (“Unity”) party
in favor of a pop musician candidate Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly who,
in the end, was elected president.[24]

Ricardo Seitenfus, a special representative for the OAS in Haiti, states
that a secret ‘core group’ of foreign dignitaries sought to force the
president of Haiti out of office in a clean-cut coup. He stressed that
this core group also “engineered an intervention in Haiti’s presidential
elections that year that ensured that the governing party’s candidate
would not proceed to a runoff.”[25] It appears then that this disruption
was backed by illegal foreign intervention against the Haitian
government as well as by a series of human rights violation in which the
US government, the United Nations Secretary, and the OAS all shared
responsibility.

When Aristide tried to return to his country in 2013 after nearly ten
years in exile in South Africa, President Obama personally called South
African President Jacob Zuma twice in order to block Aristide’s
return.[26]. President Obama also effectively persuaded the French
government and UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon to join efforts in order to
prevent further “threats.” Even after the return of former Haitian
President Aristide (thanks to South Africa’s resistance to American
imperialism), the US government all but installed the neo-Duvalierist
Michel Martelly as president as a mere puppet to defend US interests.
Bill Clinton’s former aide, Mr Garry Conille, was later named Haiti’s
prime minister.[27]

After Ten Years of Military Occupation, Human Rights in Haiti are in a Much More Deteriorated State

These political intrigues and this spoliation of democracy by the US
government has not served the best interests of the Haitian people. One
of the most emblematic cases is the cholera epidemic in the country.
Even despite the fact that the United Nations constantly negated its
responsibilities, many families of victims have launched lawsuits
against the UN, stating that the epidemic were prompted mainly by some
UN soldiers from Nepal. The result of cholera epidemic was the killing
of around 10,000 Haitians in the past four years.[28]

Furthermore, several natural disasters such as the earthquake in January
2010, Storm Isaac in August 2012, and Hurricane Sandy in October 2012,
have led to the displacement of two million people who have since been
installed in refugee camps.[29] More than one year later, in December
2013, there were still nearly 150,000 persons housed in these camps.
Only 72 of these camps were built on public spaces while 229 were built
on private property.

Around 18 percent of these camps were eventually closed because of
governmental orders and 10 percent were closed due to evictions. The
evictions, carried out by police or military force without secured
alternative housing options, were a human rights violation. Most of
those evicted still have yet to find new accommodations and are still
living in the street or in miserable camps.

The institutional fragility of the Haitian state has clearly led to
unstable an undermining of economic, social, and cultural rights of the
Haitian people. The authorities are not able to provide the deserved
rights in respect the availability of fields such as alimentation,
housing, education, health or and access to jobs which are all but
ignored.

An extreme example is that child exploitation continues to remain a
reality in Haiti. Since the earthquake, some poor families have “given”
their children to rich families. The children receive education, food,
and housing in exchange for domestic tasks. In full daylight, these
children, called the “restaveks,” are exploited, deprived of their
rights, exposed to physical and verbal abuses, and are obligated to
engage in forceful and painful work under conditions slightly better
than slavery. UNICEF reported in January of 2012 that there are around
225,000 “restaveks” in Haiti.[30] Sexual violence is also a big issue in
Haiti, with around fifty cases each year, many likely to go
unreported[31].

Furthermore, the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the UN has
reported that human rights defenders have been prosecuted throughout the
country.

Civil and political rights remain fragile due to weakness of governing
state and institutions. The poor access to the judiciary system and high
crime rates in Haiti are evidence of this. The murder rate has risen
from 5.6 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 to more than 14.3 per 100,000
inhabitants in 2012. Cases of public lynching have become more prevalent
with more than 100 a year occurring between 2010 and 2012, illustrating
the low confidence in the judicial system.

Moreover, the local and legislative elections initially scheduled for
2012 have yet to occur and there is still no date for these elections to
be staged.

The Haitian president has sought to appear as to be the one fulfilling
his duty by purposing a new draft electoral law, which members of the
Senate refuse to ratify citing the unconstitutionality of the process
leading to this draft.

In addition, the situation of the Haitian people living abroad is also
of concern because they represent a very high level risk of dangerous
statelessness. In fact, many Haitian people abroad are victims of the
denial of their rights to identity, nationality, and personal dignity.

For example, in September 2013, the Dominican Republic Supreme Court
declared that the people born from illegal immigrants in the Dominican
Republic would be subject to nationality “degradation”. This Supreme
Court statement was made retroactive, since 1929, meaning Haitian
descendants born in Dominican Republic since then were being deprived of
their nationality, being neither Haitian nor Dominican.[32],[33]

Conclusion

As stated by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in
Haiti, the situation of human rights in the country is very serious. The
Independent Expert presented five ways for improving the situation: “a
strong political will, civil society active participation, a consensus
on prioritized problems to solve, a congruent coordination and
concentration of efforts, and a strong perseverance of these efforts in
order to achieve these goals.”[34] The statement may be a bit naive
considering the unremitting history of a plague of sadness, which now
haunts Haiti.

The current situation in Haiti is a result of the foreign policies of
the French, Canadian, and American governments and their allies’ (UN,
OAS, etc.) with the ongoing illegal military intervention in the
country. These interventions have brought about human rights violations,
state destabilization and massive suffering. With the current
illegitimate president inducted by the US government with the support
from the OAS, how can the situation be any different?

Military invasion, occupation, and foreign intervention has not helped
to return the country to democracy or to uphold human rights. In fact,
it has been a disaster. Today those responsible don’t want to accept
accountability for this situation and choose instead to criticize
Haitian political actors for the current condition without no regard for
these crimes. True solutions lie in respect for fair elections, popular
will, democratic life, and putting an end to military occupation.

References
[1] “François Duvalier, 1957–1971″, The Library of Congress, Country Studies, December 1989.
[2] ABBOTH, Elizabeth. Haiti: The Duvaliers and Their Legacy, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988,
[3] Report of the Special Representative of the Commission on Human
Rights, E/CN.4/1987/61, August 5th 1987, par. 1 to 3, 18 and 87.
[4] MOODY John “Haiti Bad Times for Baby Doc, ss violent protests grow, a
besieged dictator imposes martial law” in Time Magazine, Feb. 10, 1986
[5] Report of the Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1996/94, January 24th 1996, par. 8.
[6] FRENCH Howard W. “Front-Running Priest a Shock to Haiti” in The New York Times, December 13, 1990
[7] FARMER Paul “Who removed Aristide” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 8 • 15 April 2004 pages 28-31
[8] FARMER Paul “Who removed Aristide” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 8 • 15 April 2004 pages 28-31
[9] FRENCH, Howard W.; Time Weiner (14 November 1993). “C.I.A. Formed
Haitian Unit Later Tied to Narcotics Trade”. New York Times. Retrieved 6
May 2010.
[10] FARMER Paul “Who removed Aristide” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 8 • 15 April 2004 pages 28-31
[11] FARMER Paul “Who removed Aristide” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 8 • 15 April 2004 pages 28-31
[12] MACDONALD Isabel “France’s debt of dishonour to Haiti” in The Guardian, Monday 16 August 2010
[13] FARMER Paul “Who removed Aristide” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 8 • 15 April 2004 pages 28-31
[14] The details of the meeting were reported by Michel Vastel in “Haiti
put into trusteeship by the United Nations?” L’Actualité, 15 March,
2003 or in ENGLER Yves, “Media Cover-up of Canada’s Role in the Overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide”, Part 1 of a 4 Part Series, Dissident Voice, January 30th, 2014
[15] SDA-ATS News Service, 29 février 2004 “La Maison blanche appelle Jean-Bertrand Aristide à quitter le pouvoir” in Interet General, on February 29, 2004
[16] SPRAGUE Jeb, Paramilitarism and the Assault on Democracy in Haiti, Monthly Review Press, 2012.
[17] ENGLER Yves, "Media Cover-up of Canada’s Role in the Overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide", Part 1 of a 4 Part Series, Dissident Voice, January 30th, 2014
[18] [18] For more information regarding the role of US and French government in Aristide destitution, see Paul Farmer, “Who removed Aristide” in the London Review of Books, Vol. 26 No. 8• 15 April 2004 pages 28-31:
[19] As stated by the US Secretary of Defense
[20] BAR editor and columnist JEMIMA Pierre “Don’t Blame Republicans for Obama’s Actions in Haiti” in Black Agenda Report (Information Blog)
[21] BAR editor and columnist Jemima Pierre “Don’t Blame Republicans for Obama’s Actions in Haiti” in Black Agenda Report (Information Blog)
[22] JOHNSTON Jake and WEISBROT Mark “Haiti’s Fatally Flawed Election” in CEPR, January 2011
[23] As stretched by a US Secretary of State report “Although turnout was higher than in 2009, it was only about 22 percent in the first round of the current election process.
[24] JOHNSTON Jake and WEISBROT Mark “Haiti’s Fatally Flawed Election” in CEPR, January 2011
[25] In an interview with Dissent Magazine, with information cited again by CEPR here and here
[26] WEIBSROT Mark, “Haiti must decide Haiti’s future “ in the Guardian, on March 17, 2011
[27] ENGLER Yves, “Media Cover-up of Canada’s Role in the Overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide”, Part 1 of a 4 Part Series, Dissident Voice, January 30th, 2014
[28] PILKINGTON Ed “Haitians launch new lawsuit against UN over thousands of cholera deaths” The Guardian, March 11 2014
[29] GALLON Gustavo, Independent UN expert report on the situation of
Human Rights in Haiti, A/HRC/25/71, February 2014, Human Rights Council.
[30] GRUMIAU Samuel, «UNICEF aids restavek victims of abuse and exploitation in Haiti», Port-au-Prince, Haïti, 31 janvier 2012
[31] GALLON Gustavo, Independent UN expert report on the situation of
Human Rights in Haiti, A/HRC/25/71, February 2014, Human Rights Council.
[32] According to his data, the number of Haitians living abroad would
be about 4.5 million people. In 2007, the International Crisis Group
estimated that a population of more than 3.71 million Haitians and
descendants of Haitians residing abroad. The reference is International
Crisis Group, “Construire la paix en Haïti: inclure les Haïtiens de
l’extérieur”, Rapport Amérique latine/Caraïbes no°24,
Port-au-Prince/Bruxelles, December 14 2007.
[33] GALLON Gustavo, Independent UN expert report on the situation of
Human Rights in Haiti, A/HRC/25/71, February 2014, Human Rights Council.
[34] GALLON Gustavo, Independent UN expert report on the situation of
Human Rights in Haiti, A/HRC/25/71, February 2014, Human Rights Council.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent,
non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information
organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of
the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For
more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org